1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SEFANIT TESFA, 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-0397 

 Plaintiff, JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

 Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King 

v. 

 

AMERICAN RED CROSS, 

 Defendants. 

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on (1) Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 11 and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). 

(ECF Nos. 52 and 53.) The Court DENIES both motions. 

I. 

Plaintiff asks for Rule 11 sanctions as a consequence of Defendant American Red Cross 

filing a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 40) of this Court’s order denying in part 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff asks for “an award of 

attorney’s fees and costs associated with having to respond to Defendant’s frivolous motion for 

reconsideration.” (ECF No. 52 at PageID# 815.) 

 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a couple of reasons. First, the Court is 

unimpressed by Plaintiff’s premise that she was forced into “having to respond” to Defendant’s 

“frivolous” motion. Plaintiff’s response seems to have been an afterthought. Plaintiff did not 

file a timely response to the motion for reconsideration and the Court denied as moot her request 

to file a brief in opposition to the motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 66.) Given that the 

Court did not require the benefit of Plaintiff’s response to deny Defendant’s motion for 

Case: 2:12-cv-00397-GLF-NMK Doc #: 68 Filed: 10/21/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

reconsideration, the Court is not convinced of the premise that Plaintiff had to respond, let alone 

expend the time to respond when her time for doing so had already passed. 

 Second, it does not appear from the face of Plaintiff’s motion that she complied with Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) before filing her motion for sanctions. Specifically, there is no evidence 

before the Court that Plaintiff served Defendant with her Rule 11 motion and gave Defendant an 

opportunity to withdraw it before Plaintiff filed the motion with the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

11(c)(2) (“The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or presented to the 

court if the challenged paper . . . is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after 

service or within another time the court sets.”). 

II. 

Plaintiff also moves this Court for an order allowing her to file a supplemental complaint 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Under Rule 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, permit a party to 

serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened 

after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” 

 Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplemental pleading that adds a claim for retaliation 

against Defendant. According to Plaintiff, who still works for the Red Cross, one of the alleged 

decisionmakers (Evette Wise) who denied Plaintiff the promotion at issue in this case has 

allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff for filing this action. Specifically, Plaintiff’s motion asserts 

that Wise “docked Plaintiff three weeks leave time” after conducting “a ten-year look back audit 

of Plaintiff’s leave time.” (ECF No. 53-1 at PageID# 828.) Plaintiff believes this audit was 

retaliatory and that some of the “docked” leave time actually qualifies for protection under the 

federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). (Id. at PageID# 828-29.) Plaintiff therefore 

Case: 2:12-cv-00397-GLF-NMK Doc #: 68 Filed: 10/21/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

seeks leave to file a supplemental complaint that adds claims for retaliation and violations of the 

FMLA. 

 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. Although the Court may allow a plaintiff to add 

claims in a supplemental complaint, doing so here would inevitably delay these proceedings 

when the matter is already set for trial in four weeks. In the Court’s view, allowing 

supplementation would unduly delay resolution of the present case. See Eidam v. Bailey, No. 

1:10-cv-34, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69609, at *11 (E.D. Mich. June 29, 2011). “A trial court 

does not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow supplementation of a complaint which would 

add extraneous matter late in the case.” Id. (citing Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 

1201, 1229 (11th Cir. 2009); In re Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 250 (7th Cir. 1992)). If Plaintiff wishes 

to pursue her retaliation and FMLA claims in a separate lawsuit, she is free to do so. 

III. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF 

No. 52) and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 53). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cv-00397-GLF-NMK Doc #: 68 Filed: 10/21/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>